The Save the Basin Campaign has said that aspects of the new Wellington transport plans unveiled today “feel like a slap in the face of the new Government”.

Several of the new “scenarios” for Wellington transport unveiled today by Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) – made up of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Greater Wellington (GW) and Wellington City Council (WCC) – show that a version of the failed Basin Reserve flyover project (known as the Basin Bridge) remains on the table.

“NZTA’s Basin Reserve flyover project was an utter failure, and was rightly rejected by the courts,” said Save the Basin spokesperson Tim Jones. “LGWM and especially NZTA know people don’t want this failed flyover plan, yet here they go again!”

“It seems LGWM has learned nothing from NZTA’s track record of defeat,” said Mr Jones. “Have the last two years of ‘engagement exercises’ been a sham? What’s the point of putting us through all that malarkey only to come up with the same old, tired, motorway-dominated proposals?”

“These plans will not get Wellington moving. The induced demand of a road-first approach will just make traffic chaos throughout the city worse. We need to create viable transport alternatives to reduce dependence on private cars, and make travel easier and safer for the people who really need to use the roads.”

Mr Jones said that many other aspects of the new scenarios felt like a deliberate slap in the face of the new Government.

“The attempts to factor in the new Government’s aims of reducing carbon emissions and become a carbon neutral economy by 2050 are pathetic. There appears to be no attempt to take into account the new Government’s transport priorities. These scenarios look like they were drawn up by the National Party and rushed out at the end of the year to try to sneak them under the radar.”

In the 2014 Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry decision rejecting the previous flyover proposal, NZTA was taken to task for the many deficiencies in its consultation process. Mr Jones said the timing of the current round of consultation showed LGWM hasn’t learned from NZTA’s failures.

“LGWM has chosen to run a crucial consultation phase from now till mid-December, when people are caught up in the pre-Xmas rush,” said Mr Jones. “That looks a lot like a cynical attempt to minimise public input.”

“When and if LGWM provides a meaningful level of detail about their plans,” Mr Jones concluded, “Save the Basin will be able to decide if any of these scenarios are worth further consideration. Right now, it looks like LGWM needs to go back to the drawing board.”

This is it. At long last, the NZTA transport planners who were defeated over the Basin Reserve flyover are going to put their new plans on the table. Be there to have your say – see below for when, where & how!

RSVP by Tuesday. If the invite links below don’t work for you, urgently email info@getwellymoving.co.nz for an invitation, or just tell them you plan to attend the event. Be polite, but be resolute.

Don’t let the short notice or the bad timing of this ‘consultation exercise’ stop you. NZTA have refused to rule out proposing another flyover at the Basin Reserve. Are you going to let them get away with that?

Be there if you possibly can: Prefab, this coming Wednesday, 15/11, 6.30pm.

To make Wellington more liveable and support the region’s growth we need to change the way we move in, around and through the city. Last year we asked the people of Wellington what they think about Wellington’s transport.

Now we’re back with some possible future scenarios that aim to move more people without more traffic. We’ll be seeking the public’s feedback on these in late November and early December to help us develop a preferred scenario.

We’d like to invite you to the launch of our public engagement on the 15th of November, so we can share with you our ideas to Get Wellington Moving.

The rules of the Ministry for the Environment’s Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, which groups including Save the Basin have used to help fund legal challenges to infrastructure projects, have now been changed so that such applications can be arbitrarily declined, by:

The inclusion of a new criterion to consider whether providing ELA funding to the applicant for its involvement in the legal proceedings, will contribute to impeding or delaying the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being in relation to important needs, including employment, housing and infrastructure.

I was rung by a Stuff journalist about this and responded on behalf of Save the Basin:

A subsequent exchange in Question Time (see below) makes it very clear that Nick Smith had the Government’s Basin Reserve flyover defeat in mind when he made this move.

Nick Smith and the Government appear to think that fits of pique make good public policy. We beg to differ.

Question Time

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: By how much has annual funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund been cut since 2013/14?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The budget this year is $600,000 per year, as it was last year and the year before. For the 4 years prior to that the budget was $800,000 per year but was repeatedly underspent. The spend in 2013-14 was $555,000, and the average actual spend was $520,000. As much as I like the Minister of Finance, I do not like under-spending my vote so I reduced the budget in 2015-16 and transferred it to increased support for collaborative processes. This is also consistent with our blue-green philosophy of supporting people to find solutions rather than spending it on legal aid to fight disputes.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that he created a new criterion for the fund recently so that community groups wanting to challenge council decisions in the courts are likely to be denied funding if their case might “impede or delay” a development project?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have changed the criteria. A new consideration is the issue of housing and infrastructure. The Government makes no apologies for making it harder for groups to get Government money to stop houses and infrastructure from being built. It does not prevent funding being provided in those sorts of cases, but it requires the panel to give consideration to the broader public interest. It simply does not make sense for the Government to be using public money to stop transport projects being built and stop houses being built with legal aid funding.

Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that Forest & Bird would have received funding to mount a legal challenge to Bathurst Resources’ proposed coalmine on the Denniston plateau if this new criterion had been in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an independent panel that makes the decisions on the issue of the legal aid. What I have added to the criteria is that, alongside the environmental things, issues like infrastructure, jobs, and housing have to be a consideration. But it still will be an independent consideration for the panel.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that last year he gave himself the power to decide which cases and which community groups would get environmental legal aid, stripping this power away from the Ministry for the Environment’s chief executive?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each year Ministers make a decision about the level of delegations. In this particular case, I decided not to delegate to the Ministry for the Environment, albeit I note that I followed the panel’s advice in every case. In the event that I do not follow the panel’s advice it will be a matter of open public record.

Eugenie Sage: Why will he not just own the fact that his Government is trying to stop legal challenges that might impede environmentally destructive development, like the coalmine on the Denniston plateau, the Ruataniwha Dam, and the Basin Reserve flyover?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of many Wellingtonians who would be concerned that the Government was spending money on stopping roading through to the airport being constructed with legal aid funds. So the Government has deliberately put into the environmental legal aid criteria that the panel needs to consider issues like infrastructure and housing. To quote the Minister for Infrastructure: “We are the infrastructure Government.”, and we want to see New Zealanders being able to get around and have a roof over their heads.9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: By how much has annual funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund been cut since 2013/14?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The budget this year is $600,000 per year, as it was last year and the year before. For the 4 years prior to that the budget was $800,000 per year but was repeatedly underspent. The spend in 2013-14 was $555,000, and the average actual spend was $520,000. As much as I like the Minister of Finance, I do not like under-spending my vote so I reduced the budget in 2015-16 and transferred it to increased support for collaborative processes. This is also consistent with our blue-green philosophy of supporting people to find solutions rather than spending it on legal aid to fight disputes.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that he created a new criterion for the fund recently so that community groups wanting to challenge council decisions in the courts are likely to be denied funding if their case might “impede or delay” a development project?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have changed the criteria. A new consideration is the issue of housing and infrastructure. The Government makes no apologies for making it harder for groups to get Government money to stop houses and infrastructure from being built. It does not prevent funding being provided in those sorts of cases, but it requires the panel to give consideration to the broader public interest. It simply does not make sense for the Government to be using public money to stop transport projects being built and stop houses being built with legal aid funding.

Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that Forest & Bird would have received funding to mount a legal challenge to Bathurst Resources’ proposed coalmine on the Denniston plateau if this new criterion had been in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is an independent panel that makes the decisions on the issue of the legal aid. What I have added to the criteria is that, alongside the environmental things, issues like infrastructure, jobs, and housing have to be a consideration. But it still will be an independent consideration for the panel.

Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that last year he gave himself the power to decide which cases and which community groups would get environmental legal aid, stripping this power away from the Ministry for the Environment’s chief executive?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each year Ministers make a decision about the level of delegations. In this particular case, I decided not to delegate to the Ministry for the Environment, albeit I note that I followed the panel’s advice in every case. In the event that I do not follow the panel’s advice it will be a matter of open public record.

Eugenie Sage: Why will he not just own the fact that his Government is trying to stop legal challenges that might impede environmentally destructive development, like the coalmine on the Denniston plateau, the Ruataniwha Dam, and the Basin Reserve flyover?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of many Wellingtonians who would be concerned that the Government was spending money on stopping roading through to the airport being constructed with legal aid funds. So the Government has deliberately put into the environmental legal aid criteria that the panel needs to consider issues like infrastructure and housing. To quote the Minister for Infrastructure: “We are the infrastructure Government.”, and we want to see New Zealanders being able to get around and have a roof over their heads.

Congestion Free Wellington held its first public meeting on 25th May with strong support for its Declaration. The meeting also showed strong support for the extension of our 100% clean and zero emission trolley buses on the east/west route at least until 2015, or when light rail should be commissioned.

The Sustainable Transport Committee on 21st March heard a request that a Business Case be carried out for Wellington’s trolley bus network, as the Council had at no time during the process, done this. The petition was supported by the Civic Trust, Sustainable Energy Forum, Living Streets Aotearoa, FIT, Save the Basin, OraTaiao and Dr Susan Krumdieck.

GWRC publicly stated goal is an all-electric bus fleet. It follows that the council make an objective assessment of the trolley buses contribution to city transport needs and environmental impact.

More than 300 cities around world are operating and expanding trolley bus networks. They are more popular because they are clean, quiet and quick. Lyon, France has new trolley buses, San Francisco and Seattle have large trolley systems and Beijing and Shanghai Beijing are reconverting failed battery buses to trolleys. Other cities such as Zurich and Istanbul, are building trolley buses with new technical developments to improve trolley bus performance.

Despite discussion and some Councillor support, the response through the Chief Executive was to reaffirm the decision to not renew the trolley contracts on 30 June, apart form short term extensions to aid transition to a new fleet.

We are deeply saddened by Council’s unwillingness to assess objectively the value of Trolley Buses, and also note the lack of transparency in confusing statements by the Chair maintaining progress towards a low emission fleet.

The proposed Wrightspeed hybrid replacement of the trolley buses by NZBus utilising a gas turbo (diesel) motor appears to be in trouble, with a wall of silence from all parties. Cr Daran Ponter said that it was unclear why the delays had occurred, and the patience of some councillors was wearing thin.

There are two aspects to emissions: air quality and greenhouse emissions (GHE), and the two should not be lumped together as higher air quality standards don’t always lead to lower GHE.

“When you look at last week’s announcements about new bus contracts, the Tranzit plan is described as building 228 new buses, all of them diesel though with Euro 6 certification, the highest global emission (air quality) standard…”

Recent revelations relating to filters installed on vehicles, indicated that in the real world, performance was quite different to “in factory”. Euro 5 and especially euro 6 filters are expensive to maintain on diesel buses, and the temptation will be to not renew so that their effectiveness will diminish over time. Euro 6 standards are still unable to remove the very small 2.5 micron particles which are responsible for cancers and respiratory disease leading to the WMO classifying diesel as a class one toxic carcinogenic equal to asbestos.

And we will never know how effective the filters are, as no testing is required in New Zealand – GWRC rejected my proposed amendment allowing for spot tests in future contracts.

There will be a jump in both greenhouse emissions and in particulates with more diesels on the golden mile, contrary to the claims of Chair Chris Laidlaw. The Wrightspeed model will also lead to a decrease in air quality and an increase in greenhouse emissions. There is also serious concerns about their viability as no where else in the world have they been tested as part of an operational public transport fleet.

The public are asked to have faith that a profit driven operator will keep to set standards – a game of smoke and mirrors.

Wrightspeed is hybrid technology and after 12 months since the first trolley bus conversion started it hasn’t been on trial yet. One might conclude that the GWRC is being misled on the suitability for this technology given Wellington’s terrain, and alas GWRC officers don’t have the engineering knowledge to decide either way.

The decommissioning of the Trolley Bus overhead electrical network is scheduled to commence in November 2017 with a planned completion date 12 months later.

The Save the Basin Campaign has welcomed the public release of Let’s Get Welly Moving’s long list of scenarios for the future of Wellington transport.

But spokesperson Tim Jones is concerned that some vital questions appear to have been ignored during the assessment process.

“First of all,” Tim Jones said, “Let’s Get Welly Moving didn’t release these scenarios until they were forced to by an Official Information Act request. If NZTA, Greater Wellington and Wellington City Council genuinely want informed public debate, they should have released these scenarios and workshop notes as soon as possible after the workshops in November 2016, not waited until June 2017 to do so.”

“Second, from the material released, it looks like some vital questions have not been asked during the assessment process. No consideration appears to have been given to either climate change or other public health issues, such as the excess deaths caused by pollution, especially from diesel engines.

“Both the Government and the local authorities have commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – why hasn’t the need to meet these commitments been put front and centre when developing and assessing these scenarios?” Tim Jones asked.

In terms of the Basin Reserve, Tim Jones said “We’re pleased that none of the scenarios appear to show a Basin Reserve flyover. But there is far too little detail shown in the material that’s publicly released to be sure what’s planned for the Basin. We need to see detailed proposals.”

In conclusion, Tim Jones said “The Basin Bridge Board of Inquiry made it very clear that assessment of alternative transport options needs to be thorough, transparent and replicable. We’re not sure that Let’s Get Welly Moving’s scenario development and assessment process has met those criteria, and we’ll be watching their next steps very closely.”

This public meeting will help us fight back against motorway madness and in favour of a liveable capital city that puts people first. It’s been called by a coalition of local groups concerned about the future of Wellington’s transport system, including Save the Basin.

Come along, invite your friends, and let’s make sure the outcome of this process is a liveable capital city with great public transport, streets, walking and cycling.

The Let’s Get Welly Moving (LGWM) public engagement process has gone through another of its seemingly endless permutations, with a series of workshops and meetings during March and April giving participants the chance to state their priorities in areas including public transport improvements, state highway improvements, encouraging active transport (walking and cycling) and transport demand management.

But while the public face of LGWM is this slowly unfolding public consultation process, there’s a whole lot more going on behind the scenes. Some officials, politicians and lobbyists are pushing strongly for state highway “improvements” to soak up the lion’s share of the funding available for Wellington transport.

If that happens, then consequences could include building duplicate Mt Victoria and Terrace tunnels, four-laning State Highway 1 as it passes through the city, or undergrounding at least part of State Highway 1’s route through the CBD.

And what about the Basin Reserve itself? Well, after the comprehensive and epic defeat of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Basin Reserve flyover proposal, LGWM is still talking about the possibility of … a Basin Reserve flyover! Maybe a smaller flyover, maybe a flyover with nicer decorations and a better colour scheme, but a flyover nevertheless.

To be fair, we have no evidence yet that LGWM has settled on a Basin Reserve flyover as its preferred option for that part of the transport system. LGWM’s High and Medium state highway improvement options include grade separation at the Basin Reserve. That could be achieved by a flyover, a tunnel, or a cut-and-cover option. But it’s very clear that a flyover is still on the table as a potential option.

Which raises the question: does the Transport Agency still think, as its own internal report on its failure at the Board of Inquiry suggested, that the main problem with the flyover was that they didn’t sell the idea well enough? Because if they think that was the biggest problem with their proposal, then they really need to go back and read the Board of Inquiry findings on why a Basin Reserve flyover was such a terrible idea.

When Let’s Get Welly Moving started out, it was supposed to be a chance for a rethink, a chance for the three constituent bodies – NZTA, Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington – to move away from the outmoded transport approach that more motorways meant less congestion and a better transport system, when the evidence both New Zealand and worldwide clearly shows the opposite.

More roads means more congestion, a worse transport system, a less liveable city and yet more greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the Government, the City Council and Greater Wellington have all made commitments to reduce such emissions.

So it’s depressing, if not surprising, to hear that the road-builders are making the play once again – even though one of the key objectives of the project is to reduce dependence on private vehicle travel.

The only thing that will save the day and ensure that the central city is not ruined by still more roads is public pressure. If you think that coming up with good solutions for Wellington transport should involve:

taking meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

becoming less, not more, dependent on the private motor vehicle

improving public and individual health through encouraging activity and reducing harmful particulate emissions

making Wellington a more liveable city

preserving and enhancing public spaces such as the Basin Reserve

making Wellington better and safer for pedestrians and cyclists

moving towards setting up a modern, efficient light rail system along with a bus system that meets users’ needs

concentrating on managing travel demand

and avoiding burning massive amounts of public money at concrete shrines to the car

then it’s time to speak up. Tell your local and regional councillors that you don’t want the car-dependent future that the road-building and heavy haulage lobbies are trying to foist on you. Make that message very clear to your MPs and local election candidates at the forthcoming election. Don’t vote for candidates who want to focus transport spending on motorway building.

Engagement is great – so long as that engagement is meaningful. Officials may want the pond to stay unruffled, but the time has come to start making waves.

Ever since late 2015, the Let’s Get Welly Moving project set up by NZTA, Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington (Wellington Regional Council) has been working away behind the scenes to take a fresh look at Wellington’s transport, access and mobility needs in the wake of the defeat of NZTA’s proposed Basin Reserve flyover.

As part of their announced commitment to openness, LGWM ran extensive public engagement in early 2016. Since then, however, and despite the recent release of their progress report (PDF, 2MB), it’s all gone a bit quiet.

But at long last the covers are about to come off LGWM’s thinking. Have they been planning for a sustainable, multi-modal transport system, with an emphasis on walking, cycling, and modern, environmentally friendly public transport – or will it be all about “more lanes to the planes” – or will they try to please everyone?

And what do they have in mind around and near the Basin? Will the future of the Basin Reserve be safeguarded, or will it once again be put at risk?

We’ll start to find out at two LGWM workshops later in March – but attendance at these workshops has been strictly controlled, and that raises its own set of questions.

Save the Basin looked at these issues in a Dominion Post OpEd that appeared on Wednesday 8 March:

On the same day, Michael Barnett of FIT Wellington drew attention to NZTA’s motorway-oriented mission mindset, and the regressive impact this was having on attempts to develop a sustainable transport system for Wellington:

We hear a lot about “four lanes to the planes”, but what if the planes don’t come? Wellington Airport has been pushing its runway extension plans hard, but their economic analysis amounts to “build it and they will come”. That may have worked for Kevin Costner in the movies, but it rarely works in the real world.

And in any case, the runway extension project continues to run into delays and legal troubles. Here’s the latest from opposition group Guardians of the Bays:

At this point, the future of the project, and whether the planned resource consent hearing in the Environment Court will even go ahead, is unknown. Maybe there are better things to spend the transport dollar on than building motorways to an airport that can’t get its act together?

If the project did go ahead, it would lead to years of additional heavy truck movements – up to 60 truck movements per hour, thirty out and thirty back – around the Basin Reserve. Save the Basin thinks that’s a very bad idea, and we’ll be drawing attention to the implications of that during the Environment Court hearing on the project, if the hearing does ever go ahead.

That’s good news at the start of a year in which important decisions are likely to be made about the future of transport in Wellington. The NZTA/WCC/Greater Wellington Let’s Get Welly Moving project is running half-day workshops in February which will represent the first opportunity for the public to get to grips with LGWM’s transport thinking for Wellington in the wake of the defeat of the proposed Basin Reserve flyover.

Will LGWM’s transport thinking reflect recent developments in transport, mobility and access? Will it allow for a rapidly changing transport environment in which the need to:

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport

increase resilience to climate change and natural disasters, and

account for improvements in light rail, growing demand for walking and cycling infrastructure, the rise of electric vehicles and vehicle sharing, and the prospect of autonomous vehicles